Why Big Media Attacks On Romney Are Now So Rabid And What Romney Should Do And Say

Check out the Obama apologist Big Media outlets. They are in full rabid attack mode against Mitt Romney and in support of Barack Obama. There’s a reason for this.

Regular readers know we started writing about Big Media as adjuncts of the Obama campaign back in 2007. The JournoList scandal proved our observations to be accurate. But since September 11, 2012 Big Media has gone whole hog in attacking Mitt Romney and protecting Barack Obama.

At Arriana’s Huff n’ Puff website some anti-Romney screeds are getting close to 40,000 comments. The DailyKooks are full out KooKoo in vitriol against Romney and hosannas for Obama.

Why are the DailyKook type websites and Big Media in a tornado frenzy? Hint: it’s not because they are in a position of strength.

Fear is driving the rabid attacks. Fear. Fear of the unknown and an even more profound fear which lies at the heart of every Obama Hopium Guzzling Dimocrat. That fear is not nameless. That fear has a name.

The name of that fear is “Jimmy Carter”.

* * * * * *

The Barack Obama campaign has run on the model of 2004. In that year an unpopular incumbent ran a base election and squeaked through to a victory.

The Mitt Romney campaign sees 1980 as their model year. In that year a Republican challenger to an incumbent president trailed or was close to the president for many months until at the very last moment, at a debate, the challenger proved his worthiness and broke the race wide open to a comfortable victory.

If you look at these two models after the events of September 11, 2012, the 1980 model appears to be the one most congruent with the current political situation. That is what scares the Obama Hopium Guzzling Big Media and other Obama acolytes. That is why the response to Mitt Romney’s mild critique of Barack Obama has been so brutal.

“I’m having the strangest sense of deja vu over the last eighteen months or so, and the attacks on two diplomatic missions in the Middle East over the last 24 hours has only intensified it. Once again we have an American government that either tacitly or actively undermined an ally in the region in favor of supposedly democratic Islamist radicals, and once again we have an American government that gets taken by surprise when the government that results either fails to protect our embassies and consulates or arguably participated in an attack on them. Once again, the response to those attacks have been more mea culpa than mighty, and once again the weakness of the response puts our other diplomatic missions at risk.”

None of this is too surprising. This is not what alarms Obama’s henchmen in Big Media. But that is not all there is to the Big Media “malaise” and the need to attack Romney with ferocity.

Big Media and the astute observer, like hurricane watchers over the African coast, can see the mists congregating and the winds begin their spiral dance. Big Media (a.k.a. the Obama campaign) sees the gathering storm. First there was the Obama convention giving Romney a vast opening with the “God” and “Jerusalem” disasters forever documented on Youtube.

The “God” and “Jerusalem” revelations at Obama’s convention were followed up by Obama’s snub of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on September 11, 2012. These events were stirring up worries in the Obama Big Media mob for days (Obama quoting Jimmy Carter isn’t helping). But then what they feared most happened.

What Obama’s Big Media henchmen most feared is usually one of their most useful tools: pictures.

Looking at the pictures of an American flag ripped to shreds by Muslim mobs, arrayed like hungry crows on an embassy wall, it is hard to distinguish the 2012 pictures from the 1979 pictures. The videos are equally hard to catalog. Are these from ’79 or are these ’12? Is that Muslim thug on the wall vintage age of high Jimmy Carter gas prices or high Barack Obama gas prices? Is that bearded thug ripping the American flag an Obama unemployment rate Muslim or a Jimmy Carter era bum?

The pictures are deadly. Big Media knows that no matter how much they write in defense of Obama those darn pictures speak for themselves. Americans watching the stars and stripes ripped for mob souvenirs might just get a clue that not all is well. That is why Big Media is doing all it can to cast the blame on Mitt Romney and stoke the fires of love for Barack Obama.

“The substance of what Romney said at the time was absolutely right,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said about the situation in Libya and Egypt on “Special Report” tonight. “The problem is he needs to make a larger argument. There is a collapse of Obama’s policy. It began with the Cairo speech, it began with the apologies to Iran. It began with regret for the Iraq war, it began with the so-called outreach and it completely collapsed. It has gotten nowhere on Iran. These are the fruits of appeasement and apology.”

“He should make a general speech, not attack here and there but a speech explaining and connecting all the dots. That’s what a candidate ought to do and to leave attacks to surrogates and to Ryan,” Krauthammer said.

Romney indeed needs to make the “larger argument”. These are the words that Mitt Romney must include in that speech or series of speeches:

Mitt Romney must provide a narrative for what is happening in America and the world. That narrative must start by laying out the facts. The conclusion will be: Obama must go or be removed. Make the case Mitt.

“With these facts in hand, it is clear that the attempts to present these acts of war against the US as the consequence of some stupid nothing movie are obscene attempts to deflect the blame for these unwarranted attacks onto their victims and away from their perpetrators”.

“12 photos of people apologizing to America.”
—;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;-;—
too little too late … I have years of memories of huge hoards of rabid mid-eastern people screaming “Death to America” and gleefully celebrating the deaths of thousands who were buried under the twin towers. They branded this on my brain and it will take a lot more than a few people with homemade signs to undo all that.

NewMexicoFan, there is a lot to distinguish the Libya and Egypt situations. In Libya that is a barely functioning government with many militias having powerful weapons. The Libyan government immediately apologized. The Libyans themselves did not vote for Muslim fanatics to run their government. Even though what happened in Libya was murderous the response of the government and people of Libya leave room for hope.

Contrast Egypt. There the government is the Muslim Brotherhood which has made demands instead of unequivocal apologies. Egypt gets lots of American foreign aid,. The head of the Egyptian government recently was in Iran and there is a possibility of a new ugly alliance between both states. The people of Egypt include many well educated Muslims, Christians and people of good will who thought they were getting a liberal government instead they now have a monstrous entity determined to drag the country backwards.

I am just thinking of our Hillary, how things are unraveling in her SOS world around the globe. How she ‘represents’ Barry’s policies, how she has little choice right now but to keep on truckin’ until Nov or Jan? She hates to leave a job in a big fat mess…how upset she must be along with all of us at Barry’s just voting present and jetting off to the next fundraiser while she tries to keep her fingers and toes in all the holes of the dike.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took strong steps Thursday to distance the U.S. government from a movie that has sparked protests throughout the Muslim world, calling the film “disgusting and reprehensible” but also condemning violence in response to it.

“The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages,” Clinton said. “But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”

FTA –
But the hubris of a president who believes he does not need to meet regularly with them is astounding. When President John F. Kennedy gathered every living American Nobel laureate for dinner at the White House in 1962, he declared it “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Apparently, in this administration’s view, Kennedy had it wrong ­ the most extraordinary collection of talent and knowledge ever gathered in the White House is when Barack Obama reads his daily intelligence brief alone.

A new advertisement scheduled to run in Florida makes the case that President Obama has pushed the Democratic Party to embrace anti-Israel policies, according to a copy of the ad obtained by the Free Beacon.

In the coming days, the Emergency Committee for Israel, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, will release an ad entitled, “Whose Democratic Party?”

The spot, which will air during Sunday’s football game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders in what is being described as a “significant ad buy,” accuses Obama of leading his party to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Coming on the heels of the Democrat’s controversial omission and contentious reinsertion of language in the party platform declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the ECI ad asks voters: “Is this still your Democratic Party?”

Following footage of DNC delegates vociferously booing the pro-Israel declaration, the ad reminds viewers in the critical swing state that the Obama administration has on multiple occasions refused to state that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital.

ECI Executive Director Noah Pollak told the Free Beacon that ECI wants Democratic voters to ask themselves if they are comfortable with the party’s direction under Obama.

“The debacle at the DNC signifies where Obama is going in a second term. The first four years have been bad enough, but what happens when he has more ‘flexibility?’” Pollak wondered.

Admin, thanks for the clarification between the two countries. I, also, have a hard time giving money to countries that treat us this way. I am told it will buy us cooperation and influence, but I feel if the country participates in any hostile actions at all we should cut our aid to that country. This should not be tolerated.

This administration is a total failure. Hillary included, I’m sorry but she has set herself up with this Muslim fanatic loving man and now America MUST set ourselves away from them.

There are terrorists who want to kill us and Obama is gonna get us killed. Hillary is part of this now as well.

I have soul searched and I have come to the conclusion that I will never be able to vote as a Democrat again in my whole life. I was raised to be Democrat, Bill Clinton had me, Hillary had me but to see what this person who resides in our white house now has done and what this PARTY stands for. No God, No Jerusalem until it was force fed down them. Ass kissing the terrorists and saying we don’t have any enemies who want to kill us. I’m done with the bowing and ass kissing.

Sorry Hillary. I can never vote for you cause you are part of this now and I don’t agree in my heart with what you are doing./

Yesterday the Obama made a pointed critique of Mitt Romney suggesting that he was unprepared to handle foreign policy because he “shoots first, aims later.” This Foreign Policy report of the President trying to walk back his strong statement on Egypt yesterday ought to give pause to anyone who took that critique seriously:

President Barack Obama didn’t intend to signal any change in the U.S.-Egypt relationship last night when he said Egypt is not an “ally,” the White House told The Cable today.

In an interview with Telemundo Wednesday night, Obama said that the U.S. relationship with the new Egyptian government was a “work in progress,” and emphasized that the United States is counting on the government of Egypt to better protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was attacked by protesters on Sept. 11.

“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama said. “They’re a new government that is trying to find its way. They were democratically elected. I think that we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident.”

One wonders whether his admittedly careless statement yesterday further ratcheted up tensions in Egypt while the situation in the region was still unfolding.

The spot, which will air during Sunday’s football game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders in what is being described as a “significant ad buy,” accuses Obama of leading his party to weaken the U.S.-Israel alliance.

—
I’m glad this ad will run in Fla at a big game. Also, the Raiders are big in N. Calif, so many of my local Jewish friends will see it.

Shadowfax: “I am just thinking of our Hillary” – and I’m right with you on that. Especially when you report:

“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took strong steps Thursday to distance the U.S. government from a movie that has sparked protests throughout the Muslim world, calling the film “disgusting and reprehensible” but also condemning violence in response to it.

“The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages.”

I wish I had kept a transcript of Hillary’s speech about Internet freedom and free speech, which I think was delivered before the UN or maybe some foreign policy think tank, early in 2009. In it, she made a clear case for freedom of expression with the responsibility that necessarily went with it, saying that this was true for all our freedoms. That was the first time I began talking about responsible free speech on this site. Now I get nailed for it and get called un-American. So:

sorry, but same old stuff – scroll on by, people:

Wbboei: “And now one suggested that fining him and putting him in jail would be perfect freedom. That is the world of Orwell”
=====

wbboei, as a lawyer you should have noted in my suggestion that the French law provides for a civil suit and not a criminal case – that is, it is not the government that declares such and such statement to be injurious and thus prosecutes, but rather an injured party who can sue the injuring party in court and claim compensation and even jailing if the injuring party cannot pay.

Since it is not the state that is doing the policing, but a civil matter between a plaintiff and defendant, it is not Orwellian. The court is there only to judge if the remarks were indeed injurious, and how much compensation is due.

I should further note that the law speaks specifically of “racist” remarks and not injurious language in general; but I would qualify this by saying that “racist” has a broader connotation in French as it would include gender-specific language and could even refer to religion-specific language.

And lastly, this law was passed by an overwhelming majority of deputies because they – and the people – wanted to put a stop to this kind of injurious language. However, the law has never, to my knowledge, been put to the test in an actual court case. Just passing it was enough. You never hear racist remarks any more (the prime victims used to be Arabs, not blacks), nor remarks injurious to women, Jews or Muslims.

Injurious language to a police officer, on the other hand, is a criminal offense punishable under other laws. You may view that as Orwellian, because it is a criminal offense. But racist remarks are quashed by civil law between two or more private parties.

And again, same old stuff:

“attempts to deflect the blame for these unwarranted attacks onto their victims and away from their perpetrators”

Yes, the bad movie was only one thing, but it’s still a matter of “who started the fight?”

Lil ole grape: “I have years of memories of huge hoards of rabid mid-eastern people screaming “Death to America”… and it will take a lot more than a few people with homemade signs to undo all that.”
====

So I gather that “Death to America” are words with consequences so powerful that no apology will do. At least you can see the power of wordd, now, when they are directed against you.

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

During a press conference in the Capitol on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi said that she opposes efforts to end U.S. aid to Egypt.

“If they’re suggesting we should cut off assistance to Egypt,” Pelosi said of some Republicans in Congress, “I don’t agree with that.”

“I think that the administration and even our friends in the region have said it’s really important for all parties, that is the private sector as well as the public sector, to invest in Egypt, because its economic success is important to the stability of the country, and that’s important to the stability of the region, and the world, and global peace,” said Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats.

The White House is flatly rejecting calls from House conservatives to halt U.S. aid to Egypt after a slow response from Cairo in rebuking violent attacks on the U.S. Embassy there Tuesday night.

A group of House conservatives, led by freshman Rep. Jeffrey M. Landry, Louisiana Republican, is calling for foreign aid to both Libya and Egypt to be stripped from a six-month federal funding bill up for a vote Thursday.

Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount of assistance it receives from the U.S., an estimated $2 billion a year, but the White House has no plans to curtail its investment there.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday that the U.S. would not withhold aid to Egypt.

“We appreciate the public statements that [Egyptian] President Morsi has made condemning acts of violence … and honoring its obligation to ensure the safety of Americans,” he said.

Mr. Morsi on Thursday issued a stronger rebuke to violent protesters in Cairo and Libya, vowing to protect the U.S. Embassy in Cairo after speaking for nearly an hour with President Obama on Wednesday evening. After the new statement, Obama administration officials were toning down their public comments about Egypt and their concern over Mr. Morsi’s slow response to condemning the violent reaction to an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S.

The Obama administration was already wary of Mr. Morsi’s Islamist government, and his tepid response after the attacks is giving them new cause for concern. Mr. Morsi waited a full day before issuing a mild rebuke to the rioters on Facebook while the movement that brought him to power, the Muslim Brotherhood, called for a second day of protests against the anti-Islam film that sparked the protests.

In contrast, Libyan leaders have been fully engaged in cooperating with U.S. authorities to hunt down the killers and bring them to justice and to work to put in place new protections for U.S. personnel in Benghazi and throughout the country.

The White House on Thursday acknowledged that its partnership with Egypt continues, although it has changed significantly since the last spring’s uprising toppled President Hosni Mubarak.

U.S. officials are particularly concerned about the security of the embassies in this region as the weekend approaches, and the White House is “watching closely” for more protests and coordinating with governments in the region to make sure they are aware of their responsibility to protect U.S. missions and personnel in their countries.

Mr. Obama was scheduled to have a National Security Council briefing right after a campaign stop in Golden, Colo., on Thursday afternoon.

Speaking about the outbreak of protests at the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, Mr. Carney said U.S. officials “are doing everything we can to protect the safety and security of personnel.”

The Yemeni government, he said, has sent additional security forces to the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, and Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi had made it clear he won’t tolerate violence.

This administration is a total failure. Hillary included, I’m sorry but she has set herself up with this Muslim fanatic loving man and now America MUST set ourselves away from them.
===================================================================
I am sad to say I agree with 100% Dot48.

“Is insulting equal to injurious?” – Yes, an insult is injurious by definition. So are you advocating that no one should be criticized? If that is your definition, anyone who claims to be insulted has been injured and has the right to be protected against “insulting” speech???? This proves my point entirely. Why would anyone object to non-insulting speech? It is the very essence of Freedom of Speech to protect insulting speech. It has nothing to protect from if you are saying that injurious which according to you equal to insulting speech should be censored.

“Are you saying that insulting speech should be censored?” – Not censored, which would be by the government; but the insulted person should have some way of righting the wrong done to him. Yes, and the way to right that wrong is to set the record straight. In the case of Muslims, they just need to argue against the criticism of their religion. For instance, they need to present evidence that Mohammad is NOT a pedophile.

“In law, injurious language is language that results in injury.” – Yes, that’s what I said just above.Actual injury is what the law is talking about and not imagined injury.

“Are you saying that if we insult Mohammad, it injures Muslims?” – It’s up to Muslims to decide that. Personally, I don’t give a damn. But they do. No it is NOT. Injury is not defined by the injured. It should be universally defined. Otherwise, anyone can claim to be injured for anything that someone else does. For instance, can we claim that we are injured or insulted by your very existence? Of course NOT.

“If that is what you are saying, then you don’t actually value Freedom of Speech.” – However, I do. My point is that words are not harmless vibrations in the air. They have consequences. Strawman, much. No one is arguing that words don’t have consequences. The question is whether or not Freedom of Speech is a higher virtue than protecting your precious Muslims from imagined slights.

“Anyone can take offense or find any speech insulting. What is the freedom of speech protecting if not insulting speech.” – No, I, for example, feel free to say what I want as long as it does not hurt you. I do not feel free to insult you. Yes, you are free to insult me. What you can’t do is lie. For instance, it is true that Mohammad is a pedophile, that is not insulting…that is the TRUTH.

“…it is clear that you don’t understand the concept of Freedom of Speech.” – What you don’t understand is that the concept of Free Speech is interpreted differently in different countries, and that the American concept of free expression is bereft of the notion of responsibility for what you say: We have a right to say anything at all; and if it hurts someone, it’s the fault of the victim for taking it wrongly. The victim just has to put up with it. The free speech that you are talking about is NOT free speech. If you place constraints on free speech then it is not free. I understand reasonable restrictions such as if it will cause real injury. Punishing insulting speech is NOT part of that definition. By its very nature, insulting speech is what Freedom of Speech is meant to protect.

“… for a religion that makes outrageous claims, are you saying that they should be beyond criticism?” – Criticism and debate are not injurious. I said nothing about any claims of any religion. And I am not condoning the violence in the Middle East now. You say that criticism is not injurious, but according to you…it is up to the Muslims to decide whether or not they are insulted. Which is it? According to your definition, the statement that Mohammad is a pedophile is insulting. I say NO.

But note one thing: The violence is not directed against Christians or Jews or Hindus or whatever, so it’s not religious; nor is it directed against people of any nationality except American. So the problem in these protesters’ minds is specifically about America. This doesn’t justify the violence in my mind or yours. But doesn’t it give you pause to think a little about what America represents in the world? WRONG. It IS religious because it is about criticism of their religion. What these protesters believe is that their religion is sacrosanct and should be free from criticism. It is that simple.

My point was that we Americans feel that our Free Speech is beyond reproach, that everyone around the world envies us our freedoms and wants to have the same freedoms as us. But we are mistaken here. Our freedoms are not respected elsewhere in the world – not even in Europe as I was saying yesterday – and here we go beating the war drums because Muslims want redress for an insulting video. Freedom of speech is not just about the freedom of people to say what you believe. It is also about people shouting at the top of their lungs that which you have fought against for your entire life. Muslims do not want redress for an insulting video. They want special protected status for their religion. Their religion is not and should not be free from criticism – criticism that this video provided.

This effectively gives Attorney General Eric Holder, of Fast and Furious fame, extended power over guns and gun-related property.

The rules were broadened under the guise of giving the ATF authority “to seize and administatively forfeit property involved in controlled substance abuses.” And if that doesn’t strike you as extreme on first glance, consider the fact that this expansion of civil-forfeiture allows the ATF to forego almost all “due process” in making their seizures — in effect, placing the burden of proof on the citizen instead of federal agents.

Last year, even without these expanded powers, ATF confiscated more than 11,000 guns, and nearly four hundred of them were taken from innocent citizens. With the expanded powers and the ease of bypassing due process now in place, the number of guns confiscated could rise exponentially.

I heard on NPR radio today that while there were slightly fewer housing foreclosures nationwide, in August, the foreclosure rate in Florida increased, and was almost three times that of the national average.

Obviously, no one wants to see people losing their homes, but I it does seem likely that this concern might have some impact on the election in Florida.

Senior aides report that the Romney campaign is nearing the conclusion of a required security clearance process. The former Massachusetts governor did not have to request the briefings. They are customary for major-party candidates after their nominating conventions.

This means Romney will receive some briefings ahead of the foreign policy-focused debate next month.

admin
September 13th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
——————
You are correct on your article, and correct on this comment.

Tdo, although I was heartened to see the Libyan protester’s signs, you made it appear that there were more people protesting than there actually were.

The Libyan government, if you can call it such, has reacted more decisively than the Egyptian government which if anything, has tacitly approved of the anti-American protests in Cairo. This indicates all one needs to know about the Egyptian leadership at this time. Since the Arab spring is more like the Arab nightmare, I can only hope that some Arabs fight for secularization, and are successful in that attempt.

I was torn about the Clintons and their involvment with Obama and the Dimocratic party in general. I am feeling much like you feel today. Democrats have just about lost me for not just a couple of election cycles, but for good. Tea party is where I’m headed. Now if only they would become an actual party, and not a movement.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday championed the United States’ First Amendment, saying the government doesn’t stop Americans from debating Islam.

The policy shift is a tacit validation of Mitt Romney’s criticism of administration policy, but buttresses President Barack Obama’s controversial Arab outreach policy, which has been damaged by televised waves of Islamist attacks and the rise of Islamist political parties.

“Our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and in our law,” she said during a long-planned meeting with leaders from Morocco, a Muslim country concurrently governed by a Western-oriented king and an elected Islamist government.

“We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be,” she said, in reference to complaints by Islamists about a low-budget video that uses orthodox Islamic texts and current events to satirize Islam and Islam’s reputed prophet, Muhammad.

Clinton’s high-profile defense of the First Amendment is a turnaround for the administration, which has repeatedly slammed criticism of Islam as anti-American.

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got it right. The Middle East desk at the State Department got it right, too. And so did Mitt Romney. All three correctly rejected the initial Cairo Embassy statement on the developing violence in Egypt and Libya as weak and inappropriate. And yet Romney was the only one to become the focus of media ire for it.

The sequence of events is becoming clear: Embassy Cairo ignored the advice of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and issued the statement anyway. When Romney condemned it, President Obama issued a statement criticizing Romney. Clinton was left shocked and upset that the draft statement she rejected was actually issued over her objections.”

Winston Churchill’s 1899 description of Islam is still pretty accurate:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

The Associated Industries of Florida business group has released snippets of a survey taken by Mclaughlin & Associates, a firm that typically polls for Republicans, which finds Mitt Romney clinging to an inside-the-error-margin lead over President Obama, 50-47%, among likely voters.

“I’m glad this ad will run in Fla at a big game. Also, the Raiders are big in N. Calif, so many of my local Jewish friends will see it.”
********
Well I see that the Repubs have their own group of “too cleaver, creative class” ijits making ads….Playing Wagner as a background for a political ad directed at Jews, oy vay, the stupidity!!!
As a non-Jew, I find it offensive…maybe it’s just old age and knowing some history.

I’ve asked Saletan a series of questions about this piece on Twitter. Alas, I got his name wrong, so he has all the excuse he needs to pretend not to notice.

The question I ask — it’s long and multi-pronged — is this:

What does William Saletan imagine the purpose of anti-Christian art is? I do not dabble in it myself, but it seems to me that such art is animated by several things:

1. Simple hate. There is no doubt that many anti-Christian artists simply hate Christianity, and, perhaps more than the religion itself, Christians themselves.

2. A belief that art which injects doubt into the mind of a believer is a good thing, because artists tend to think of themselves as free-thinkers, and wish to encourage free thought. They believe that Christianity (and other religions, but especially Christianity) is a silly superstition, and they think their art helps to liberate people from this superstition.

3. An anger at the political stances engendered by Christianity. They don’t like where fundamentalist Christianity leads, politics-wise, so they seem the sowing of doubt as a useful method of undermining the Christianity where the rubber meets the road, that is, at the point Christian thought affects policy choices.

Has William Saletan ever objected to any anti-Christian art? Has anyone at Slate magazine? Has any liberal in the media, the entire media, objected?

Even when the motivation seems to be simple hate — and yes, there are those who simply hate Christians and Christianity, and that bitter venom comes through — I never see anyone calling such art “juvenile provocations” or “hateful stupidity.”

Now, many of us — and this includes me; does it include William Saletan, I wonder? — think that fundamentalist Islam is dangerous and rather bad for those living under it. And we — again, is William Saletan among them? — would like to see, if possible, a movement away from fundamentalist Islam.

We don’t like that it justifies murder in the name of “god.” We do not like that it turns women into de facto slaves — every wife is the slave of her husband, to be beaten, or raped, or disposed of as the husband may wish. Every non-married woman is in an even worse position, except to the extent her male relations may protect her. But even in that case, a woman’s status comes through the men around her.

We do not like its rejection of the Enlightenment, or of its reactionary opposition to unobjectionable (or so we thought) universal values of human dignity. We do not like its insistence on championing believers in a faith with a superior legal status over nonbelievers (also known as “polytheists,” “blasphemers,” “apostates,” “dhimmis,” or, worst of all, “Jews”).

We do not like its apparent political agenda of building a bridge to the 14th century.

For nonbelievers like myself — agnostics — and believers in other creeds as well, it is alarming in its championing of anti-blasphemy laws (punishments ranging from long terms in prison to execution) and its insistence that everyone living in an area controlled by Islam give praise to a “god” and an ideology that we do not actually believe in.

It is unobjectionable in the modern age to express hostility towards the Catholic Inquisition. It is, however, very strangely considered something approaching a hate crime to express hostility to the currently existing Islamic Inquisition.

Now, if someone like myself would like to encourage people to abandon this hidebound, hateful, backward mode of thought — and, again, I ask: Does William Saletan disagree? Is he a big fan of fundamentalist Islam? — we might take a page from all that anti-Christian art the country has been awash in for 70, 80 years, and think to ourselves, “Perhaps spoofing this religion, pointing out its absurdities, pointing out its true evils, will help inject a modicum of useful doubt into the minds of the believers, and perhaps cause a moderation, a skepticism of things like woman’s servitude and especially Murder In The Name of ‘God.'”

Would I be wrong in thinking this? To read William Saletan, I would, because his piece says, with very little caveating at all, that to offend the dignity of Islam (especially fundamentalist Islam) is not a use of free speech — not a permissible use of it, like all that anti-Christian art he’s never got ’round to condemning — but an an abuse of it.

One might have certain beliefs — such as the idea that a religion predicated upon the de facto slavery of women, the rejection of the reason and humanism, and ultimately, even the rejection of the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill — and one might think he would be on firm ground to use the exact same methods and techniques of subversion and spoof and plain ol’ vitriol directed against the Faith of the West for coming on a century now.

But no, William Saletan sharply disagrees, and calls such things an “abuse” of free speech.

Not a legitimate use of free speech. Not a true expression of truly held beliefs (and, again, does William Saletan disagree that fundamentalist Islam could use some reform and rethinking? Let’s get him on the record).

But an abuse of free speech, and if not a crime, per se, at least such a transgression as requires the mobilization of social pressures (ostracization, demonization, even threats to physical safety — ask Salman Rushdie about that) to punish those who would give themselves to such “abuses.”

Am I wrong to think that fundamentalist Islam is in dire need of some doubt?

William Saletan, I am fairly confident, would be quite effusive in describing all the manifold ways in which the Christian mind is “closed” and “hidebound” and “haunted by superstition.” He would, I’m reasonably certain, be quite in favor of any artistic project which undermined the foundations of Christian thought.

And yet, when we turn to fundamentalist Islam, he becomes… a censor. He becomes not an agent of the Inquisition per se, but a bit of a fanboy of it.

And why? Why the anger directed towards someone who is doing what Saletan would almost certainly praise were it directed at any other religion?

I think I know. There is a line of magnificent wisdom in the film The Spanish Prisoner (by David Mamet). It is spot-on about human nature.

The circumstances of the quote are that a young financial wizard has created a “Process” which is worth, literally, trillions. However, it was created as work-for-hire. He created it, but the company owns it. And he’s wondering if the company will actually compensate him for it, as they have promised.

Steve Martin gives him the bad news (paraphrased): “I think if they have a moral obligation to you but not a legal one you will begin to find them behaving cruelly towards you. You will find them treating you poorly, isolating you, speaking badly about you when you are not present. Even as they decide to stiff you out of what they owe you, they will compound that with bad manners and worse intent. They will not be apologetic about it; they will become increasingly hateful towards you.”

The reason is this: When people know they have a moral obligation towards someone which they do not feel like honoring, for reasons of personal interest, or personal safety, or personal political agenda, they feel awfully bad about themselves for not honoring the moral obligation. They feel awfully bad that they are ignoring a moral obligation in favor of their own personal interests.

And people do not like feeling bad about themselves.

So what people do, is this: They begin demonizing the person to whom they have an inconvenient moral obligation, convincing themselves that he is in fact the Bad Guy because, hey, he makes them feel bad. So he must be the bad guy.

In fact, he must be a Monster.

And no one owes a moral obligation to a Monster.

So, as William Saletan, and the news media generally, gives up completely on its own duty to protect free speech, they have to explain this to themselves in terms of No Duty To Protect a Monster.

Indeed, they will even, at the end of the day, help jihadists find the inconvenient Monster in order to murder him, and thereby make the Bad Feeling About Oneself go away.

If left to his own devices, without any contrary narrative to cast doubt on his claims, a coward can write an account of his heroic deeds in battle that would make Achilles himself quail.

“The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.” [….]

Yes, Mr. Oturd , please go apologize to these muslims in the Middle East, go bow down to them, you’re an expert at it. But please, wait until you’re kicked out this November, then you can go grovel at anyone’s feet you want as a private citizen!

Krauthammer: What We’re Seeing Now is the “Meltdown, the Collapse of the Obama Policy on the Muslim World””
Must have been that 2009 Cairo speech the idiot gave where he insisted on inviting the Muslim Brotherhood over the reluctance of Mubarak.

“Clint Eastwood thinks that President Obama has taken too much credit for Osama bin Laden’s death, he recently said in an interview with Esquire.

“There are two kinds of people in this world,” Eastwood told the mag a month before his “empty chair” speech at the Republican National Convention. “‘I’ people and ‘we’ people. I’ve always tried to be a ‘we’ person. I think that our president is an ‘I’ person. He speaks as though he killed Osama bin Laden himself.”

Eastwood, a legendary actor and director who was once the mayor of Carmel, Calif., suggested the president was in love with power.

“Can you imagine being him, surrounded by people all the time?” Eastwood said. “I’d hate it. But he seems to like it. He seems to like what I’d hate, all the trappings of power. He said that if he failed in his first term he wouldn’t seek a second. Well, here he is — unemployment’s still up around 8 percent — and he’s doing anything he possibly can to keep power. There’s no way he’s going to give it up.””

Shocking, indeed, Leanora! An investigation about who was privy to the Ambassador’s impending visit will narrow the field of suspects/traitors. Also, another investigation is sure to occur about who knew what and when in the State Department — and, I hope, the WH. BO will try to hang this on Hillary’s neck. This is not looking good for Hillary. I hope she resigns if it is revealed that the WH kept crucial information away from the State Department.

Another excerpt from “The Independent” article:

“Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.”

Riiight. Because making some silly movie that “hurts muslim’s feelings” is valid reason to do violence against innocents. /sarc
So, they want shariah law all around the world? What’s that called again? A caliphate?

“Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood in a statement demanded legal action against those behind the film.

“[H]urting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people’s anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” it said, calling for “assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions” to be criminalized.

“Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial.””

“It’s hardly a new meme that the mainstream media are comfortably snuggled in the pocket of President Obama. His cheerleaders in the media no longer even make so much as the weakest attempt to camouflage their allegiance. Anything shy of promoting Obama, ignoring his massive and even dangerous failures and turning a blind eye to the outpouring of anger over his failed presidency as exemplified in poll after poll showing him below 50 percent could mean the end of a so-called “journalist’s” career — or at least curtail the in-crowd party invites in D.C. and the Upper West Side.” [….]

“BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — The attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff, a senior Libyan security official said on Thursday.

Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya’s deputy interior minister, said the attacks Tuesday night were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action. Infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off militants to the safe house location, he said.
****

““Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

― Benjamin Franklin
*******
Good reminder of how smart the FFs were. Over the past decade, we have let the fear of “terrists”
let politicians shred the Constitution and individual rights and the Obama thugs are worse than the Bush/Cheney thugs.

Sort of goes back to the question of who was worse, Hitler or Stalin, Mao or Hirohito, etc., etc. The only difference seems to be that the “lefties” end up with a higher body count.

“We do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be,” she said, in reference to complaints by Islamists about a low-budget video that uses orthodox Islamic texts and current events to satirize Islam and Islam’s reputed prophet, Muhammad.

Absolutely, mcnorman! I was thinking of that particular quote also. Un-friggin-believable!

“In “Audacity of Hope” [Obama] writes: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope.”

At the outset of the controversy, the U.S. media focused on the blowhard producer of the film Sam Bacile, a pathological liar of sorts, who allegedly tricked his cast and crew into making the grotesquely offensive movie and lied to the mainstream media about his identity and the film’s financing. While Bacile’s lies have made for an interesting media sideshow, he never would’ve become a headline if his film hadn’t sparked an international incident.

So the question remains: Why this shoddy YouTube clip and why now?

The original trailer of Innocence of Muslims was posted to YouTube by Bacile in July, but never gained attention until last week when it was translated into Arabic and linked to by an Egyptian-American Copt Morris Sadek in an Arabic-language blog post. Around that same time, Koran-burning Florida Pastor Terry Jones began promoting the film to practically no effect in the U.S. But it did gain the attention of a Glenn Beck-style TV pundit in Egypt: Sheikh Khalad Abdalla, a host on the Islamist satellite-TV station al-Nas. On Sept. 8, Abdullah lit the match that set this entire international incident in motion
[….]
Shortly following Abdullah’s broadcast, views of the video began increasing rapidly and Cairo news outlet Youm7.com reported that the leader of an Egyptian political party “denounced the production of the film with the participation of vengeful Copts.” That clip of Abdullah’s show has now attracted over 300,000 views.

His BFF, boss (and the one that actually sits in the chair) Valerie Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran. I can’t imagine that she has been anything but a great influence in precipitating this crisis. She’s the gatekeeper.

[….]
“Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.”

Both countries [Egypt and Libya] are having the same problem that every post-revolutionary government has in its first couple of years: until [people] agree on what constitutes a legitimate post-dictatorship government, there are a lot of heavily armed groups running around, confident that they can overthrow the next government if they don’t like it any better, who remain to be convinced that they won’t need to.

Libya is living through the very-nearly worst case scenario for this: village and tribal and ethnic and religious militia groups there, that were only loosely tied to the unified rebel command, armed themselves for the war by over-running and seizing pretty nearly the entire Libyan Army arsenal, and until they’re convinced that the new government won’t try to crush their village or suppress their faith or exploit their ethnic group or loot their tribe, they’re not even vaguely willing to return those weapons to the new provisional Libyan army. On the other hand, nobody’s in a hurry to use them, either, because the older members of those militias remember what happened to Afghanistan after the Russians retreated. [….] Negotiations among the militias in Libya are still ongoing, shows of good faith are still offered and watched for, and you shouldn’t judge them for taking their time; after the US overthrew its British colonial governors, it took us 11 years to write a constitution with agreed-upon legitimacy. In the meantime, though, the official Libyan army is kind of a joke and, in the very short term, that’s kind of how most Libyans want it. After decades of military dictatorship, you can hardly blame them.

But when first the small protest outside the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and then the consulate itself, came under attack by a large, professional, and heavily armed militia, that did leave nobody to defend it but a couple of wildly-under-armed, poorly organized Libyan soldiers and whatever small bodyguard staff the US ambassador travels with when briefly visiting a consulate that isn’t in the capital city. The defenders were surprised and completely outgunned; the consulate burned to the ground with the US ambassador inside.

To my annoyance, this has an awful lot of ill-informed people blaming the new Libyan government […] even though the people who did it are, clearly and unambiguously, the enemies of that government. Which enemies? We may not know definitively for days [….]

turndownobama
September 14th, 2012 at 1:21 am
A wise perspective from elsewhere, which fits with Hillary’s take.

Both countries [Egypt and Libya] are having the same problem that every post-revolutionary government has in its first couple of years: until [people] agree on what constitutes a legitimate post-dictatorship government, there are a lot of heavily armed groups running around, confident that they can overthrow the next government if they don’t like it any better, who remain to be convinced that they won’t need to.

Libya is living through the very-nearly worst case scenario for this: village and tribal and ethnic and religious militia groups there, that were only loosely tied to the unified rebel command, armed themselves for the war by over-running and seizing pretty nearly the entire Libyan Army arsenal, and until they’re convinced that the new government won’t try to crush their village or suppress their faith or exploit their ethnic group or loot their tribe, they’re not even vaguely willing to return those weapons to the new provisional Libyan army. On the other hand, nobody’s in a hurry to use them, either, because the older members of those militias remember what happened to Afghanistan after the Russians retreated. [….] Negotiations among the militias in Libya are still ongoing, shows of good faith are still offered and watched for, and you shouldn’t judge them for taking their time; after the US overthrew its British colonial governors, it took us 11 years to write a constitution with agreed-upon legitimacy. In the meantime, though, the official Libyan army is kind of a joke and, in the very short term, that’s kind of how most Libyans want it. After decades of military dictatorship, you can hardly blame them.

But when first the small protest outside the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and then the consulate itself, came under attack by a large, professional, and heavily armed militia, that did leave nobody to defend it but a couple of wildly-under-armed, poorly organized Libyan soldiers and whatever small bodyguard staff the US ambassador travels with when briefly visiting a consulate that isn’t in the capital city. The defenders were surprised and completely outgunned; the consulate burned to the ground with the US ambassador inside.

To my annoyance, this has an awful lot of ill-informed people blaming the new Libyan government […] even though the people who did it are, clearly and unambiguously, the enemies of that government. Which enemies? We may not know definitively for days [….]

Forget Hillary in 2016. It is over as of today. I mourn this and at the same time I am so ticked off at both of them for allowing themselves to be put in this position.

One word would have stopped any of this. She should have told Obama NO and stayed in the Senate.

…………………………….

You can certainly see that a narrative has started that this is Hillary’s fault in the media, do not be surprised if Obama does knife her in the back, we’ve seen it all before, he may use this as his ultimate last chance to destroy her and Bill.

We are going to see one hell of a fallout after this mess, If Obama tries to screw Hillary over this,which you 100% bet he will, it will be sly, it will be briefing against her, its being done right now and it will go nuclear because Bill will have an absolute fit, Obama has no interest in intelligence meetings, the open goal for republicans on foreign is as wide as the Atlantic Ocean.

Obama is going to get us killed, if its not giving guns to gangs in Fast and furious who come over the mexican border and shoot people, its letting diplomatic staff get murdered on the street of libya by upending the middle east. It is incredulous to see a President so reluctant to protect the people and put them in so much danger.

Just seen John McCain on tv linking Obama to killing Americans with both fast n furious and the middle eastern mess.

John Batchelor was interviewing Congressman Devin Nunes when he said he had breaking news.

The Congressman said the Intelligence Committee requested someone from the State Dept. brief them on the events in the Middle East, etc., and they refused. And didn’t give a reason why. They would have settled for staffer, they weren’t asking for anyone in particular.

He said it was unprecedented and had never happened as long as he could remember. He made a point of saying there was a great deal of bi-partisan cooperation on the committee, so it couldn’t be blamed on election year partisanship.

………………………………..

There is something going on, something going down, would not be surprised if State is furious at the WH.

The Obama administration is flatly denying a blaring British newspaper report that the U.S. diplomats in Libya were killed as a result of a “continuing security breach,” and that “credible information” about possible attacks had been ignored.

A U.S. official told POLITICO: “There’s no intelligence indicating that the attack in Benghazi was premeditated.”

Pentagon spokesman keeps referring to what happened in Benghazi as a “tragic event”. Seems to understate murderous terrorist attack on US.

……………………………

No this was not a tragic event,a tragic event is a child dying young, a car accident, falling down stairs and breaking your neck…… this was cold blooded premeditated murder and defiling of American people and Embassies.

Mitt Romney on Thursday called President Barack Obama out on his mishandling of the economy and foreign policy at a campaign rally in Fairfax County, Virginia, a region he said could “well determine who the next president is.”

In a week in which Obama’s equivocation has been in part responsible for Islamists killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya and storming U.S. embassy in Egypt, Romney said America today is at the mercy of events instead of shaping them.

“A strong America is essential to the world,” Romney said.

Romney said the world and the Middle East need America’s leadership, and Romney recounted a meeting with former Polish President Lech Walesa in which Walesa told him, “the world needs American leadership.” Walesa kept asking, “Where is American leadership?”

Much of Fairfax County’s economy is tied to the defense industry, and Romney assured the crowd a strong military that is second to none that “no one would think of testing” was essential to a strong America.

He denounced the proposed military cuts the Obama administration helped put in motion and said he would “restore our military commitment” if elected.

Romney pointed out that the president did not speak about the unemployed during his Democratic National Convention address despite the unemployment numbers ballooning under Obama’s watch and 368,000 Americans giving up and leaving the workforce last month.

Romney criticized Obama for his economic failures and for failing to offer specifics about how he would fix the country’s economy going forward.

“I didn’t just study the economy in school, I’ve lived in the economy for 25 years,” Romney said, before asking the audience to “find someone who voted for Obama and get them to join our team.”

Hillary is tied to this disaster, no way around it, and if it’s true the State Dept had 48 hr intel, she is screwed.

Truth be known, 9/11, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to ascertain that you shouldn’t have your Ambassadors in the area and that your consulates should be guarded by your own Marines with real bullets, otherwise, don’t have a consulate.

Unless it is documented somewhere that Obama ignored requests from the State Department for better security or ordered them to depend on the security forces of the host country to protect their diplomats, I’m afraid that Hillary will be forced to take the blame and resign as Secretary of State.

That didn’t take long. Drudge now has Hillary’s picture (with Obama hiding behind her) with the headline PAPER: U.S. WARNED OF EMBASSY ATTACK BUT DID NOTHING displayed as the lead story. Big Media will definitely be eager to pin it all on her and away from the Anointed One.

If Hillary goes down Obama goes down. This close to an election, the resignation of the SoS would be damage beyond comprehension, not to mention Obama would then have to deal with a very very mad Bill Clinton.

Maybe Obama figures if he’s going down he’s going to make damn sure he take the Clintons with him, he is that sort of person.

moononpluto
September 14th, 2012 at 3:32 am
This close to an election, the resignation of the SoS would be damage beyond comprehension, not to mention Obama would then have to deal with a very very mad Bill Clinton.
————————–
I’m sure Bill must be pretty upset right now at this turn of events that will very likely damage any chances of Hillary running in 2016. Colin Powell was a potential contender for the presidency until Dubya had him say lies at the UN about Iraq and WMDs. Obama’s incompetence in foreign affairs may tarnished Hillary as well.

Meanwhile i had to stop over at the Dummies and Kos place today, just to see whats happening….no mention whatsoever of whats happening in Egypt or Libya its like it does’nt exist. Fingers in the ears going la la la la time or they are deliberately stopping anything being written. Seriously the murders and attacks are not even mentioned on them, that ought to tell you how scared they are of this.

You can certainly see that a narrative has started that this is Hillary’s fault in the media, do not be surprised if Obama does knife her in the back, we’ve seen it all before, he may use this as his ultimate last chance to destroy her and Bill.
—————–

True. But I think that Bill Clinton destroyed himself and possibly Hillary when he spoke for obama at the convention. I notice that since that speech and follow-up endorsements, enthusiasm for the Clintons has been deteriorating. After this, it will be gone.

Obama compares murdered American officials in Libya to his Las Vegas campaign volunteers”
President Barack Obama compared his campaign volunteers to the American officials killed in Libya, saying that ‘like them, you guys are Americans who sense that we can do better than we’re doing’.

This comment is the nail in her coffin. It displays breathtaking naivete. (Sorry HRC)

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?” Clinton said. “This question reflects just how complicated, and at times how confounding the world can be.”

rickya: “anyone who claims to be insulted has been injured and has the right to be protected against “insulting” speech????”

Me: By our American definition of free speech, no one who is insulted has any right to anything at all. They’re expected to suck it in, ignore the insult or shout back an equivalent insult at the injuring party.

rickya: “Why would anyone object to non-insulting speech?”

Me: I don’t know. Why? I don’t understand why you ask this.

rickya: “It is the very essence of Freedom of Speech to protect insulting speech.”

Me: That is your idea, and I daresay it is widely accepted in the US even in the media, which is the first essential point I am driving at. My second point is that this is not an idea accepted anywhere else in the world and it is not my idea either, which is why I will consistently refrain from insulting you, for example.

rickya: “The way to right the wrong is to set the record straight.”

Me: That’s you, in your superior wisdom, dictating the right course of action for the injured party. It’s like telling the victim of a robbery that he must prove the stolen goods were his property, and then taking no action against the robber.

rickya: “In law, injurious language is language that results in injury…. Actual injury is what the law is talking about and not imagined injury.”

Me: You may know more about the law than I do (I’m not an attorney), but I think not. In civil law, there are tangible and intangible damages. For example, one company can sue another in court for physical and direct financial damages, which is what I think you mean by “actual injury”; but it can also sue for intangible damages such as loss of face or damage to the company’s or brand’s image, which is what I think you mean by “imagined injury”. An intangible damage is no less real than a tangible damage; and indeed, I have come across several cases over the last few years where the redress for intangible damages far exceeds that for tangible damages.

rickya: “Are you saying that if we insult Mohammed, it injures Muslims?…. Injury is not defined by the injured. It should be universally defined.”

Me: What you are suggesting, then, is that the government should define what is injurious (which would be Orwellian, as wbboei states) or that the population should define it (which would justify the mob reaction to the video). Actually, in law, it is up to the injured party to complain about a perceived injury, or intangible damage, and make his case in court.

The epithets thrown at Hillary and Sarah in 2008 were overlooked because both these people are public figures who are supposed to be thick-skinned, i.e. “above the fray”. But Bristol Palin could have sought retribution for the vile language and accusations thrown against her by the likes of Bill Maher, because Bristol Palin is a private individual.

She could have sued for intangible damages, and I’m sorry she didn’t. But in any event, it would be up to her and not up to Maher or his public, or the population at large, to decide that she had been insulted. That’s the way it is and that’s the way I believe it should be: The injured party, and not some ill-defined public, takes up his own defense.

In defense of the injuring party, you say that “anyone can claim to be injured for anything that someone else does” as if the possibility of a false claim would exempt the injuring party from any complaints at all about his conduct. I say that it would be up to the court to decide if the claim is justified.

rickya: “The question is whether or not Freedom of Speech is a higher virtue than protecting your precious Muslims from imagined slights.”

Me: Muslims are no more precious to me than people of any other religion or people with no religion at all. “Imagined slights” to them are, as I’ve explained above, for them to decide, not for me, you, or the American public; and the very fact that these slights are intangible makes the slights no less real, as I’ve also explained above. Irresponsible Speech, on the other hand, is not a virtue in my eyes.

rickya: “Yes, you are free to insult me. What you can’t do is lie.”

Me: No, I am not free to insult you and will not. For one thing, personal attacks have been banned on this site and I respect that ban. I respect it because I appreciate it, it fits my own definition of free speech and I know it helps further the cause of rational discourse. In other words, you, holding true to the American definition of irresponsible free speech, give me a right that I willfully forgo.

I have no intention of lying about you either, though I don’t know why you set a limit on me there. Is your point that the truth can always be told even if it hurts? I suppose I agree with you on that principle; but people who seek and tell the truth should always be ready for the consequences of telling it in the wrong place or time, or to the wrong person.

For example, I’m talking here about the drawbacks of irresponsible free speech, and I’m getting a lot of flack for it. In the case of Mohammed the pedophile, this may be true; but you’ve got to be careful whom you say it to. In the larger picture, though, the video you are defending is, as Hillary says, “disgusting and reprehensible” and is in fact packed with lies and distortions concocted by a pathological liar. You are defending this pathological liar’s right to say anything he pleases and denying Muslims’ right to do anything but understand his lack of responsibility.

rickya: “If you place constraints on free speech then it is not free.”

Me: Sadly, this is the popular conception of our freedoms in general – freedom is freedom only if there are no restrictions on it. No responsibility, no second thoughts, no pre-conditions, no protection against harming others….

Sorry to digress, but our economic freedoms are viewed the same way, much to our detriment. There is a right wing segment that adheres to a pernicious de-regulation religion that says everything has to be de-regulated to achieve free capitalism, laws have to be abrogated and so forth. Fortunately for the sane, but unfortunately for his support from conservatives, Romney has abjured this nonsense, saying “markets need regulation.”

rickya: “You say that criticism is not injurious, but… According to your definition, the statement that Mohammad is a pedophile is insulting.”

Me: No, I did not say that or define the pedophilia statement as insulting. What I said was that it is up to Muslims to say so, and at their full discretion, not mine. Or yours. Or that of Americans in general, or that of the Embassy staff, and especially not that of the pathological creator of the movie, who came right out and said that his objective was “to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. “Islam is a cancer,” he said in a telephone interview from his home. “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.” (see yesterday’s article) In other words, the objective was to impugn Muslims, the intent to injure stands out in the creator’s own words.

When you say, “WRONG. It IS religious because it is about criticism of their religion” that’s something you’ll have to hammer out with your protégé Brice, the film’s creator.

When you say, “Their religion is not and should not be free from criticism – criticism that this video provided” you are assuming that this movie is some kind of critical assessment of Islam. In the author’s own words, it is not. It is “disgusting and reprehensible.”

This still begs the question of who is “wronger” in the textbook playground case I’ve now mentioned twice, where Kid A says Kid B’s mother is a whore and Kid B starts punching. I say both kids are wrong, but that Kid A was the one who started the fight.

Now you’ve introduced a new argument into the case: What if Kid A was telling the truth? That is, what if Kid B’s mother is actually a prostitute? What’s the harm in saying so, if it’s the truth?

If I were the teacher charged with breaking up the fight and settling the dispute, I would not stop at punishing Kid B; but I would still cautionary words for Kid A about telling the truth in the wrong place and time and to a person who may be hurt by it. Kid A is still the one who started it.

It’s not a matter of when they throw Hillary under the bus. It’s how she goes! She tied herself to this “soft power” crap and it’s coming to her back. Big media will blame anyone and everyone but the Messiah. Yahoo has nothing whatsoever about the protests. Shields are up. Obummer will be protected at all costs, Hillary knew this. She should have left much earlier.

A year or 2 ago when O’s actions with Israel were becoming more hostile, I wrote that Hillary should get out sooner rather than later. I preface my next comment by saying that Hillary was the first and only candidate I ever gave money to though I had volunteered on MANY democratic campaigns.
That said, I believe she has tarnished her image and will be permanently tied to a failed forein policy. I felt previoously and now feel it is confirmed that the Arab SPring is an unmitigated disaster. Israel is in mortal peril as she never has been before…..the threats greater and more pervasive. I was offended by Hillary’s comments about what a great religion Islam is. It was more ass kissing to the Muslims and undeserved and I feel inapproriate under the circumstances.
I recently dropped my D registration. I can’t believe what this party has sunk to and that I was such a committed believer for so long. I still don’t believe that my politics has changed at all, but at this point I see no way back to this party. I abhor them.

Though I don’t agree with conservatives who advocate for privatization of everything, I do like Rommney very much and would be thrilled at this point to have him as POTUS.

I still disagree with ADmin re Rubio…..though its a dead issue. Rubio is too soft on illegal immigration. For the many of us in this country who live in communities swarmed with poor illegal immigrants who are destroying our neighborhoods, schools and tax base, enforcing immigration law is hugely important. Quite franly, Rubio just looks like a pretty face….I have listened to him speak on several occassions and heard very little substance. IMHO.

dot48: “when they throw Hillary under the bus. It’s how she goes! She tied herself to this “soft power” crap and it’s coming to her back.”
=====

Remember that Hillary was the one who pushed through the military solution to the Libyan crisis, which is the “hard power” approach. Her soft power is “an iron hand in a velvet glove”.

“Hillary… should have left much earlier.”

It’s not in her DNA to sneak out when the going gets tough. IMO, Bambi cannot do without her now, even if she contradicts him and overrides his statements. It would be the worst time imaginable, perhaps not even possible, for him to throw her under the bus. Besides, she’s the most popular and respected member of his administration.

Basically, the Fed will be buying bonds that are backed by (junk?) mortgages. Basically the same play that gave Obama, Leon Black, a $3.7 billion profit.
———————————-
At the end of this spree, the dollar will lose 50% of its value and 30% of those on fix income will be eating dog food. This is the route the political class in the democratic party favors because no politician has his fingerprints on it. The denizens of big media see this coming, and the main reason they support Obama. There has been talk of big media bail outs and he is the one who will do it. And his big government schemes will feather their nests.

Last night I had dinner with a Wall Street friend. Usually he is two or three clicks ahead of me in analyzing political events. I asked him why big media was so rabidly behind Obama, and hell bent on destroying his republican challenger. Forget about all the conventional explanations such as they are liberal, they like the White House Parties and the exciting trips, and they helped elect him. I told him my theory (above), namely that the primary reason is not political but economic and is reinforced by group think. He thought about it for a long moment, took a drag on his cigarette, and nodded in agreement.

Contrary to my earlier indication, i.e. that the American Jews who voted voted 78% for Obama in 2008, according to comedian Jackie Mason, Obama is in serious trouble now with that segment of the electorate. He told me that 40% of the money received by the Democrat Party comes from Jews, and pro Israel organizations, and the impact of Obama’s stance on Israel, including his support of Iran and snubbing of Bibi will cause a loss of financial support and boots on the ground in the 2012 campaign. It is not clear to me that is true, but we shall soon find out. He also told me that the producer of that movie was not a Jew, as some suggested, but a Coptic Christian, who have a blood grievance against Islam which cannot be dismissed by the pro Islam leftists.

jeswezey
September 14th, 2012 at 9:40 am
dot48: “when they throw Hillary under the bus. It’s how she goes! She tied herself to this “soft power” crap and it’s coming to her back.”
=====

Remember that Hillary was the one who pushed through the military solution to the Libyan crisis, which is the “hard power” approach. Her soft power is “an iron hand in a velvet glove”.

“Hillary… should have left much earlier.”

It’s not in her DNA to sneak out when the going gets tough. IMO, Bambi cannot do without her now, even if she contradicts him and overrides his statements. It would be the worst time imaginable, perhaps not even possible, for him to throw her under the bus. Besides, she’s the most popular and respected member of his administration.
————————-
Hillary, and those two two Israel haters and serial fuck ups Power and Rice. And look where it has ended up. Look at it. Dead American Ambassador, mob rule, puppet president, rise of Islam, an alliance between Kadafi, Taliban and al Quaeda forces. And no clear path forward. This is what Arab Spring has brought us. The graveyard of empire. A result which was obvious to the average American, but opaque and elusive to our betters in the elite class.

On that score, an interesting observation from my Wall Street friend about the dubious merits of those spoiled and pampered pets of the Ivys. He is a Princeton product himself. He was the product of a Jesuit high school education abroad, and said that was more rigorous than anything he got out of college. He said Princeton was like trying to drink water out of a fire hose. The main advantage of an Ivy League education, he said, is connections. It connects you with wealth but it breeds conformity. The professors and your classmates become a sort of mutual help society, not unlike the Mormons.

Hillary should have sneaked out much earlier. But that is not in her DNA.? That makes a nice political epitaph. It is always a question when to abandon a sinking ship. If you abandon it too early, you look like a fool. If you abandon too late, you go down with the ship. At best, staying aboard long as she has, and not challenging Obama, raises gave doubts about her political future. The public mind does not realize, much less comprehend the challenges she was forced to deal with, including the financial crisis, and the fatigue of two wars, and the challenge of serving a dysfunctional socipathic boss. The public mind goes straight to a simple question: regardless of the obstacles, did the political figure succeed or fail. It is hard to argue that the events of this past week, in Egypt, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the impasse with Russia and China and Iran, and the breakdown of the Middle East negotiation due to intervention of her boss, and the snubbing of the leader of Israel which is confronting an existential threat, equates to anything but failure.

Bambi cannot do without her now, even if she contradicts him and overrides his statements. It would be the worst time imaginable, perhaps not even possible, for him to throw her under the bus. Besides, she’s the most popular and respected member of his administration.
———————–
It is too late now for her to leave. The time to have done so was 2010. As far as Obama needing her, that is true. He needs her as a human shield to protect him from criticism. She did not want to be his vice president in 2012 because she did not want to be associated with his failed policies. But the latest developments have sundered the reputation big media had tried to build for him in the context of the current campaign, and have tied her to him in perpetuity–something she had hoped to avoid. No longer do we hear anything from idiots Power and Rice–or even Obama in some respects. As I say, they will use her as a human shield if they need to.

Finally, my friend talked about big media. He told them that they are prostitutes, and prostitutes have a short half like. And they do not improve with age, because once the bloom of youth has passed, all that is left is the technique.

How ironic. The very people Obama courted throughout his presidency, namely Muslim extremists, are doing more right now to invalidate the legitimacy and competence of his benighted presidency than anything Romney and his fellow Republicans are doing. Furthermore, his categorical refusal to support Israel has placed him at loggerheads with the secular leader of Israel. These facts are undeniable. What we are dealing with here is failure at the level of grand strategy. Failure at this level cannot be disguised with propaganda. Nazi propaganda blared falsities to the domestic population while allied armies crossed the Rhine and moved to the heartland of Germany, to no avail. In this case too, the collapse of the Obama doctrine has placed Obama and his big media whores in the exact same position, i.e. defending an indefensible position. That in turn is a formula for failure.

My question is WTF are these idiots who would vote to give the screw up Bambi and his zombies another 4 years. I’m disgusted, have been for 4 years and I had high hopes for Romney. Watching Fox news today, I’m convinved Jenna Lee is an ObamaBot.

Hillary chose this path, she looks haggard, worn out and out of touch so YES it is time to move on. Election be damned, her reputation is more tarnished than ever. I heard people ask, what has SOS accomplished in all of her jetsetting. This action will come back to her if she ever runs again. She won’t run again though I am most sure.

The actions of this administration have set the US back 100 years. We’ll never dig out unless we change leadership.

Let the panty-wetting begin: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 45% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate,…

US embassies in the Muslim world were on high alert Friday following days of violent protests against an anti-Islam film. Germany, too, closed several embassies in fear of attacks. Some German commentators argue that the violence shows that Obama’s Middle East policies have failed.

“Chuck Todd : Carney won’t answer Q on whether U.S. relations with Muslim world better now than when POTUS took office.”
******
Be interesting to see if a critical mass of Water-Blood-Sharks is reached with the media.

No, criticism is not insult nor is it injurious. But if we go by your standards, any criticism can be viewed as insulting. That’s the danger of the standards that you want to set up.

By our American definition of free speech, no one who is insulted has any right to anything at all. They’re expected to suck it in, ignore the insult or shout back an equivalent insult at the injuring party. Well yes. Tough. That’s the price of free speech.

I don’t know. Why? I don’t understand why you ask this. This is a rhetorical question. Think about it. If everyone is supposed to say only those things that are agreeable, why would there be a need for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, by its very nature is designed to protect speech that people might find insulting. Agreeble speech does not need any protection.

That is your idea, and I daresay it is widely accepted in the US even in the media, which is the first essential point I am driving at. My second point is that this is not an idea accepted anywhere else in the world and it is not my idea either, which is why I will consistently refrain from insulting you, for example. This is not my idea….this is the very idea of freedom of speech.

That’s you, in your superior wisdom, dictating the right course of action for the injured party. It’s like telling the victim of a robbery that he must prove the stolen goods were his property, and then taking no action against the robber. This is not according to my superior wisdom. This is the price that we have to pay if we want Freedom of Speech.

You may know more about the law than I do (I’m not an attorney), but I think not. In civil law, there are tangible and intangible damages. For example, one company can sue another in court for physical and direct financial damages, which is what I think you mean by “actual injury”; but it can also sue for intangible damages such as loss of face or damage to the company’s or brand’s image, which is what I think you mean by “imagined injury”. An intangible damage is no less real than a tangible damage; and indeed, I have come across several cases over the last few years where the redress for intangible damages far exceeds that for tangible damages. I understand the concept of damages and it does NOT apply in the case of speech. Speech IS protected so long as it does not result in ACTUAL injury. Even if it potentially will result in injury, speech would NOT be punishable until it results in ACTUAL injury.

What you are suggesting, then, is that the government should define what is injurious (which would be Orwellian, as wbboei states) or that the population should define it (which would justify the mob reaction to the video). Actually, in law, it is up to the injured party to complain about a perceived injury, or intangible damage, and make his case in court. Crazy people can do whatever crazy thing they want to do. They can complain about anything that they want to complain about. Nothing can stop them from doing so. What they can’t do is hold everyone hostage through violence because they feel offended.

The epithets thrown at Hillary and Sarah in 2008 were overlooked because both these people are public figures who are supposed to be thick-skinned, i.e. “above the fray”. But Bristol Palin could have sought retribution for the vile language and accusations thrown against her by the likes of Bill Maher, because Bristol Palin is a private individual. Yes, as a private individual, Bristol Palin can seek redress in the courts. However, her status as a private individual can be questioned. She has made public pronouncements regarding a lot of issues and people HAVE the right to call BS on her statements. This IS protected speech.

She could have sued for intangible damages, and I’m sorry she didn’t. But in any event, it would be up to her and not up to Maher or his public, or the population at large, to decide that she had been insulted. That’s the way it is and that’s the way I believe it should be: The injured party, and not some ill-defined public, takes up his own defense. The question of whether or not she can sue is already settled. She obviously can. The other question is if her suit will be successful. In the end it IS the courts who will decide if she has any cause for action.

In defense of the injuring party, you say that “anyone can claim to be injured for anything that someone else does” as if the possibility of a false claim would exempt the injuring party from any complaints at all about his conduct. I say that it would be up to the court to decide if the claim is justified. AGREED. Like I said, saying that Mohammad is a pedophile insults Muslims. Should we respect this? Their religion has extraordinary claims about Mohammad, are you saying that we do not have a right to call BS on these claims? Are you saying that we should not examine Mohammad’s history?

Muslims are no more precious to me than people of any other religion or people with no religion at all. “Imagined slights” to them are, as I’ve explained above, for them to decide, not for me, you, or the American public; and the very fact that these slights are intangible makes the slights no less real, as I’ve also explained above. Irresponsible Speech, on the other hand, is not a virtue in my eyes. Freedom of Speech is a higher virtue than the rights of Muslims NOT to be offended. Unfortunately, it takes very little to insult Muslims because they ARE insulted by the TRUTH.

No, I am not free to insult you and will not. For one thing, personal attacks have been banned on this site and I respect that ban. I respect it because I appreciate it, it fits my own definition of free speech and I know it helps further the cause of rational discourse. In other words, you, holding true to the American definition of irresponsible free speech, give me a right that I willfully forgo. Like I said, your definition of free speech is irresponsible and will result in NO freedom of speech.

I have no intention of lying about you either, though I don’t know why you set a limit on me there. Is your point that the truth can always be told even if it hurts? I suppose I agree with you on that principle; but people who seek and tell the truth should always be ready for the consequences of telling it in the wrong place or time, or to the wrong person. Because perjury is illegal. Because, in the case of slander, truth is an absolute defense. Lying will take away that defense from you. We should always be ready against barbaric reactions. But that doesn’t mean that we should excuse it by saying that we should be more circumspect about our speech. What we should be doing is to expose these barbarians for what they are. Instead of being more circumspect about our speech, we should force this barbarians to act in a manner that is consistent with modernity.

For example, I’m talking here about the drawbacks of irresponsible free speech, and I’m getting a lot of flack for it. In the case of Mohammed the pedophile, this may be true; but you’ve got to be careful whom you say it to. In the larger picture, though, the video you are defending is, as Hillary says, “disgusting and reprehensible” and is in fact packed with lies and distortions concocted by a pathological liar. You are defending this pathological liar’s right to say anything he pleases and denying Muslims’ right to do anything but understand his lack of responsibility. I understand that we should be careful about saying Mohammed is a pedophile. But the reason we should be careful is because we let these barbarians get away with their barbarity. The reason we should be more careful is because there are people like you who will criticize the speech first before criticizing the barbaric acts. I don’t care what Hillary said about the film. She does not know what Islam really is. I do. She might feel that it is disgusting and reprehensible because she has this idea that Islam IS a religion of peace. IT IS NOT.

Sadly, this is the popular conception of our freedoms in general – freedom is freedom only if there are no restrictions on it. No responsibility, no second thoughts, no pre-conditions, no protection against harming others…. Freedom of Speech is NOT freedom of speech if you require pre-conditions against insulting speech. Like I said, it is the very essence of freedom of speech to protect potentially insulting speech.

No, I did not say that or define the pedophilia statement as insulting. What I said was that it is up to Muslims to say so, and at their full discretion, not mine. Or yours. Or that of Americans in general, or that of the Embassy staff, and especially not that of the pathological creator of the movie, who came right out and said that his objective was “to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. “Islam is a cancer,” he said in a telephone interview from his home. “The movie is a political movie. It’s not a religious movie.” (see yesterday’s article) In other words, the objective was to impugn Muslims, the intent to injure stands out in the creator’s own words. No.. What you said was that it is not insulting. I said, that would be inconsistent with your standards. Are you objecting to the view that Islam is a hateful religion? Study up on Islam and you will learn it for yourself that this is a TRUE statement.

When you say, “WRONG. It IS religious because it is about criticism of their religion” that’s something you’ll have to hammer out with your protégé Brice, the film’s creator. The reaction is religious because without religion, they will not react in the same manner.

When you say, “Their religion is not and should not be free from criticism – criticism that this video provided” you are assuming that this movie is some kind of critical assessment of Islam. In the author’s own words, it is not. It is “disgusting and reprehensible.” I am assuming nothing. It does not have to be a critical assessment of Islam for it to be protected.

This still begs the question of who is “wronger” in the textbook playground case I’ve now mentioned twice, where Kid A says Kid B’s mother is a whore and Kid B starts punching. I say both kids are wrong, but that Kid A was the one who started the fight.

Now you’ve introduced a new argument into the case: What if Kid A was telling the truth? That is, what if Kid B’s mother is actually a prostitute? What’s the harm in saying so, if it’s the truth?

If I were the teacher charged with breaking up the fight and settling the dispute, I would not stop at punishing Kid B; but I would still cautionary words for Kid A about telling the truth in the wrong place and time and to a person who may be hurt by it. Kid A is still the one who started it. You are talking about social niceties. What I am talking about is protected speech. There’s a HUGE difference.

Moon @12:44 and everyone – well, I guess HE wasn’t “likeable enough.”
Please see/read “2016” if you haven’t yet – this all makes very scary sense. Largely predicted by admin and many of The Pink – He must be voted out and sent packing to the rest home in Hawaai ASAP.

“Chuck Todd : Carney won’t answer Q on whether U.S. relations with Muslim world better now than when POTUS took office.”
******
Be interesting to see if a critical mass of Water-Blood-Sharks is reached with the media.
—————
My guess is no. I think the powers in the Obama camp and media will get their minions in line and order them to redirect their attacks against Romney. No lie is too big for them, even the big lie, if it serves to protect their power, privilege and caviar rations.

I know about you, but I feel very secure as the world falls apart. And right after Obama claimed credit for killing bin Laden. What makes me feel so cool, calm and collected right now is seeing Obama not giving interviews, but showing us by personal example just how cool, calm and collected he is.

Like a bloodless manikin out of Gentlemen’s Quarterly going about the business of campaigning,leading from behind, and hiding from world events.

If you can find virtue in a man who freezes up in the moment of crisis, the moment that is suffused with risk and chance, then Obama is your man. Freezing up would be a synonym for cool calm and collected. Detached would also be descriptive.

Barack Hussein Obama is no leader. In fact, he is the very antithesis of a leader. In the moment of crisis we need a leader–not an empty chair.

Moments ago I ran into an obot neighbor in the elevator. I mentioned the world is falling apart. He said this has been happening for a long time. I said well now it is all coming to a head. He said it is amazing how in high political season people blame Obama. I said you mean they hold them accountable for failing policies. He said it is amazing how polarized we are becoming. I said that too has been happening for a long time–ever since 2008.

My take away is that as smart as he is, and he is also Jewish, he cannot face up to the truth. So he lives in denial.

these attacks are nothing to do with US Policy
————————-
Carney is right of course. And it is all so simple: The only reason these god fearing Muslims deigned to burn the American flag was to keep them warm in the chilly temperatures that engulf the region. Weather reports of hot temperatures are fabricated by tea party racists.

“My take away is that as smart as he is, and he is also Jewish, he cannot face up to the truth. So he lives in denial.”
*******
“Couldn’t happen in the country of Bach, Brahms, and Schiller”…Denial is a powerful psychological mechanism; sometimes with very tragic consequences.

His legislative history was the tell: voting present 32 times = ducking the tough issues. And it has been a constant factor in his benighted presidency: passivity in the face of crisis. A leader can be forgiven for many things. But not this. It is a character flaw what makes him unqualified for his current position. Period/
———————————

Obama’s Passivity In Crisis
Dan McLaughlin
Red State Blog

If there is one common theme about Barack Obama’s leadership style in a crisis that runs throughout his time on the national stage and is evident yet again in his response to the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi, it is passivity. Obama has shown, time and again, that he prefers to sit back, keep his distance and see what other people do first before he says or does anything. This is not an entirely bad trait – smoking out what everyone else at the table is thinking is an effective way to play poker, and there are times when doing nothing or being a follower is the wiser course. It has certainly paid him political dividends in situations where his opponents overextended themselves. But what it also clearly demonstrates is that vigorous public leadership – getting out in front and rallying the public to take some action that was not already widely supported – is above his pay grade.

Rudy Giuliani nailed this point in his 2008 convention speech, noting Obama’s response to the Russian invasion of Georgia and connecting it to Obama’s habit of voting “present” as a State Senator (Obama had rather famously coasted through his tenure as a State Senator, gaining most of his successful bill sponsorships from having his name added late to things on which other people had carried the load.):

When Russia rolled over Georgia, John McCain immediately established a very strong, informed position that let the world know how he’ll respond as president at exactly the right time. Remember his words? Remember what John McCain said? “We are all Georgians.”

Obama’s — talk about judgment. Let’s look at what Obama did. Obama’s first instinct was to create a moral equivalency, suggesting that both sides were equally responsible, the same moral equivalency that he’s displayed in discussing the Palestinian Authority and the state of Israel.

Later — later, after discussing this with his 300 foreign policy advisers, he changed his position, and he suggested the United Nations Security Council could find a solution.

Apparently, none of his 300 foreign policy security advisers told him that Russia has a veto power in the United Nations Security Council.

By the way, this was about three days later. So — so he changed his position again, and he put out a statement exactly like the statement of John McCain’s three days earlier.

I have some advice for Senator Obama: Next time, call John McCain.

Look at how this leadership style played out in the 2008 financial crisis. As I noted at the time, while scores of other people in both parties – George W. Bush, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor – flew into a whirl of activity and staked out difficult positions and John McCain (foolishly) suspended his campaign to offer his assistance, Obama sat back, took no active part in events or in leading his own party, and collected the political winnings while the public turned on everyone involved. Obama stated in public that “what I’ve told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere, anytime”; nobody ever called him.

In 2009, military commanders pressed Obama for more troops in Afghanistan, stressing that this was critical to their mission. Obama kept putting off the decision, letting months go by before he committed to a troop surge. But as we now know, Obama never intended to follow through in actually seeing the Afghan war to a victorious conclusion, and never even set concrete war aims. By the time of last week’s convention speech, Obama was reduced to arguing that “[w]e’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan,” which is not exactly “veni, vidi, vici.”

Meanwhile, the fall of 2009 also saw the outbreak of popular protest in Iran, the unsuccessful “Green Revolution.” Obama was famously slow to offer even tepid public support for the pro-democracy, anti-mullah protests, and eventually turned down a request for help from its leaders. He preferred not to get involved.

Then we had 2010′s BP oil spill. This time, decisive leadership at the top was clearly needed. But again, Obama was passive. The federal bureaucracy moved sluggishly, bereft of direction from Obama. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was out in front on the local response, but faced delays as the Administration dragged its feet. Public anger again turned first on BP, but this time, voters noticed that Obama wasn’t reacting like a leader, contributing to his falling job approval ratings.

Obama has rarely been out in front of the response to domestic natural disasters, from his arms-length response to 2009′s ice storms in Kentucky to belatedly visiting New Orleans, after Mitt Romney, following Hurricane Isaac last month.

He has similarly often remained aloof from the kind of arm-twisting on Capitol Hill that is generally associated with party leadership, an unusual trait for a president who came from the Senate; many accounts from Beltway insiders attest to the fact that Obama doesn’t spend much time with his own caucus, leaving the heavy lifting of keeping the party in line to Pelosi and Reid. As the New York Times describes Bob Woodward’s account of Obama’s legislative leadership style in his latest book:

Many aspects of this book’s portrait of Mr. Obama echo reports from other journalists and Washington insiders: a president who has not spent a lot of time cultivating relationships with members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, and who has similarly distant (if not downright tense) relationships with business executives; an idealistic but sometimes naïve and overconfident chief executive with little managerial experience and little understanding of the horse-trading and deal-making that make Washington run (skills that, say, Lyndon B. Johnson possessed in spades).

…Another scene in this book, from early 2009, describes Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, then the House speaker, working with Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, on last-minute details of the stimulus package when the president calls. As Mr. Obama – who’s been put on speakerphone – begins to deliver a high-minded message about how important the bill is, Mr. Woodward reports, Ms. Pelosi “reached over and pressed the mute button on her phone,” so they could hear him but he couldn’t hear them as they continued number-crunching the bill.

When the “Arab Spring” came to Egypt, Obama was conflicted, remaining silent during much of the protests but eventually, at the end, pressuring Hosni Mubarak to step down. In the end, he won neither the gratitude of the rebels nor of Mubarak’s supporters around the region. Today, as protestors attack the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Obama admits that Egypt is no longer a U.S. ally.

Fast forward to the early March 2011 outbreak of war in Libya. Some, like Sarah Palin, wanted the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in support of the rebels. As I explained at the time, whether or not you agreed with Palin, her view made more sense if you acted quickly, rather than waiting – as Obama did – to start one weeks later when the regime had had time to put its forces in place and the rebels had been backed into a single city (Benghazi). Obama promised that the war would last “days, not weeks”: it took five months. The mission, at least publicly billed as giving a larger role to European NATO allies that considered Libya part of their traditional sphere of influence, was memorably described as putting Obama and the United States in the position of “leading from behind,” and Obama never even bothered asking for Congressional approval, which would have required him to rally public support.

Meanwhile, even the high point of Obama’s presidency – the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden – went forward only after Obama reportedly cancelled the mission three times over the prior four months and slept on the final decision, waiting sixteen hours to give the green light.

Then there were the negotiations with over the budget crisis in July and August 2011, leading to a short-term deal and the downgrading of America’s credit rating. As I detailed at the time, Obama not only refused to put his own plan on the table at any time (leaving Republicans to bid against themselves) and refused to negotiate in public (leaving the voters stuck sorting through he-said-she-said accounts of who actually was willing to do what), but even the modest deal that was eventually struck was worked out by Congressional leaders once Obama was out of the picture:

At one point, GOP officials said, the Democratic and Republican leaders asked Obama and his aides to leave the room to let them negotiate.

A tentative deal was subsequently struck, but Obama privately threatened to veto it, the sources said.

Reid has repeatedly denied that he ever signed off on such an agreement.

The following day, staffers for Boehner, Cantor, Reid and McConnell continued to work on an agreement, according to Republicans.

After more twists and turns – and involvement from Vice President Biden – a bipartisan deal was reached a week later.

Obama’s response to the civil war in Syria has been almost as diffident as his reactions to Iran and Egypt, threatening the regime if it uses chemical weapons but otherwise remaining on the sidelines as massacres proceed.

(UPDATE: These are not, of course, the only examples of Obama’s sluggish responses to crises or his lead-from-behind approach. In 2009, Obama waited three days to speak from Hawaii on the Christmas Day underwear bomber, downplaying the bomber’s international-terror ties: “This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.” Only later would he address the Al Qaeda connection. Earlier this year, Obama finally came out publicly in support of same sex marriage, a position people on all sides of the issue widely suspected him of favoring, only after public statements by Vice President Biden forced his hand.)

Now, the embassies. Mitt Romney is taking a pounding in the press for acting quickly to put out a statement, one that was quickly overtaken by events when the State Department and unnamed White House officials distanced themselves from earlier public statements by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Obama now says that Romney – one of the most famously calculating and cautious people in politics – took a “shoot first, aim later” approach to the controversy by criticizing the Embassy. This is a window into Obama’s thinking: he himself was silent until the next morning, and considers Romney foolish for acting swiftly and vigorously – for showing his cards first. Obama has still not taken questions on the rising violence at the embassies, and jetted off last night to campaign in Las Vegas, leaving unclear how his Administration intends to react to the rising tide of violent protest.

Caution and deliberation are not necessarily bad things; important decisions sometimes take time and require the gathering of additional information, and consensuses sometimes form better without heavy-handed leadership. Sometimes, an empty chair is all the leadership we need. Certainly, in at least some of the crises Obama has faced in the Middle East, doing more would have risked creating even bigger problems. But the next four years will present more occasions when active leadership is needed – leadership on facing down Iran, leadership on containing America’s public spending, entitlement and debt crises. Barack Obama has proven, time and again, that he’d rather wait for somebody else to step up so he can decide who to follow. America deserves better.

“Hillary was the one who pushed through the military solution to the Libyan crisis.”

Wbboei: “And look where it has ended… dead American Ambassador, mob rule… rise of Islam… This is what the Arab Spring has brought us.”

You are quick to generalize from dubious factoids.

First of all, my reference to Hillary’s action in Libya was to point out that her “soft power” approach is the velvet glove on an iron hand. I was not saying that the Libyan action was successful or the best imaginable.

And yet, that is what I will say now.

The Libyan action in the Arab Spring was successful and this success can be seen in how the Libyans reacted to these riots and how they are following up on them. Libyan security forces, for all they’re worth, were there by our side, were overwhelmed with us, the government apologized immediately and immediately began an investigation, and they did this in a country with an unstable government beset by major tribal divisions and armed factions.

There have been several articles posted here, and a comment by admin, explaining the huge differences between the events in Egypt and in Libya, and the different paths we should take now.

I think Hillary is proceeding in the best possible way with the Libyans – hand in hand.

The approach in Egypt would necessarily be different and I hesitate to throw in my two cents. But I think the president has demanded that we take down this video, and that gives me an idea: Some Muslim organization in the US could sue this asshole Sam Brice for damages and, if they win, the DOJ could turn around and sue him again for complicity in the deaths of several Americans. That would teach a good lesson to Sam Brice and like-minded knuckleheads.

In return, or first, actually, we should demand explanations from the Egyptian government: Why didn’t they help? Why aren’t they investigating? Why no apology? What kind of compensation will they offer?

This situation with a dead American ambassador is not the fault of the Arab Spring, and the effects of the Arab Spring are not the same everywhere, just as the people on the ground and our policies are not the same everywhere. Are we going to start begrudging democracy to people because they or their leaders don’t have our world view? A measure of democracy was all the Arab Spring was about. The goal was not to promote Islam, but the rise of Islam was an inevitable consequence of democracy in muslim countries.

Speaking of Orwellian: leading from behind. To me that is an oxymoron. The only thing that has prevented him from being laughed off the stage is the receptive response this Orwellian marriage of unalterably opposed concepts by big media. Pass the caviar.

STF UP, MITT, opr you are going to lose those of us who joined your campaign, kicking and screaming and begging for a stronger choice!

“The president exudes an air of likability and friendliness, which is endearing,” Romney told ABC News. “But at the same time, I think people recognize that he has not done the job they expected him to do and that he promised he would do.”

The Libyan action in the Arab Spring was successful and this success can be seen in how the Libyans reacted to these riots and how they are following up on them.
————————
You define success too narrowly. Your definition does not take into account subsequent events–which were foreseeable. You come at this thing with an almost Wilsonian sense of idealism, whereas I try to look at it from the standpoint of realpolitic. The cultural fabric of Libya did not lend itself to a swift transition to the democratic model. In such matters, there needs to be long transition. Otherwise it will blow up in your face as we are now seeing. The concomitant apologias and leading from behind nonsense we have seen from Obama is all the proof we need. The reports that this is just a bunch of troublemakers echoes and reechoes the plaintiff pleas by Carter in Iran that this was just a bunch students. Larger forces are at play here.

OK. I HATE going here but I am beginning to suspect this ME blow-up was orchestrated by the POS to create a rally-round-the-flag moment. I would not put it past him. It would explain why the media jumped all over MR on Wednesday. They all have a copy of the script and it calls for the POS to make some BS speech and then, in light of the Nuclear site evacuation, the university closings, to call for martial law. MR got in the way. The media acted like two-bit actors yelling – but it doesn’t say that!

The fact they are blaming this film which has been out since July – outed the film maker including his address – pulled Terry Jones – the most hated man in America into the mix – and all this sh!t happened on 911 – too many coincidences as far as I’m concerned. Add to that the fact there were no armed Americans at the Libyan embassy and I think you might have a POS-authorized assassination.

And now the film can also be used as reason for crackdown on American free speech – including free elections.

This is a set-up and Valjar and the POS’s fingerprints are all over it.

Romney needs to put out an ad that says, “It’s 3am and obama couldn’t answer the call”, and then show him in LasVegas partying while in the background the American flag is being torn apart and the embassy’s over run.

President Barack Obama has bowed to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demand that the federal government suppress a satirical video of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Washington Post
that the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”

The request complies with the Sept. 13 demand and threat by the brotherhood, which now governs the Arab’s world’s largest country, Egypt.

“Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and… we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial,” according to an English-language statement on the brotherhood’s website.

The brotherhood’s demand included a threat of additional violence during Obama’s re-election campaign.

“The people’s anger and fury for their Faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable,” said the website.

That violence could deeply damage Obama’s election chances, just as similar Islamist violence in Iran sank President Jimmy Carter’s re-election effort in 1979.

By the way, there were bomb threats at the University of Texas today and North Dakota State. 50,000 kids alone @ Texas had to be evacuated. The caller said they were connected to Al Qaeda.

Infowars.com
September 14, 2012
A call placed to the University of Texas in Austin this morning claims al-Qaeda has planted “numerous bombs” on campus.
KVUE.com in Austin reports that all buildings on campus have been evacuated. “Everyone has been told to get as far away from campus as possible.”
“UT says a man claiming to be with Al Qaeda called President Bill Powers at 8:35 a.m. to say bombs would go off in 90 minutes.”
A campus-wide email has been sent to all students, according to the Dallas News. “Evacuation due to threats on campus immediately evacuate all buildings get as far away from the buildings as possible. Further information to come,” the email reads.
Police are characterizing the call as a general bomb threat.
The threat comes as violent protests erupt in the Middle East in response to a video slandering the Prophet Mohammed.
There are also reports of North Dakota State University being evacuated due to a similar threat.

With more than 8,000 employees and 105 branches worldwide, the official news agency, Xinhua, is at the heart of censorship and disinformation put in place by the communist party. To mark the 56th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, Reporters Without Borders releases a report of an investigation into how this highly unusual news agency operates. …

Although it is more and more regularly cited as a credible source – nearly one third of the news reports on China selected by Google News originate from the agency – Xinhua, the head of which has the rank of minister, is the linchpin of control of the Chinese media.

Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news agency has been completely subordinate to the CCP.

The Reporters Without Borders’ report includes accounts from several Xinhua journalists who agreed, on condition of anonymity, to explain how the control imposed by the CCP’s Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis.

With the help of former French journalist on Xinhua, Reporters Without Borders exposes the distortion of facts, hatred for its enemies (particularly the United States and Japan) and its support, through the treatment of international news, for the world’s worst regimes.

…The approach in Egypt would necessarily be different and I hesitate to throw in my two cents. But I think the president has demanded that we take down this video, and that gives me an idea: Some Muslim organization in the US could sue this asshole Sam Brice for damages and, if they win, the DOJ could turn around and sue him again for complicity in the deaths of several Americans. That would teach a good lesson to Sam Brice and like-minded knuckleheads.

Are you really advocating hate speech legislation? Do you really want to punish people for insulting the delicate sensibilities of Muslims? It is obvious then that you don’t want free speech. And be careful what you are asking for. Muslims have a tendency to be offended by the TRUTH. Are you saying that because people who were offended killed Americans, the fault lies with the filmmaker that caused the offense? What kind of dhimmitude is this? You are acceding to the most violent and hateful parts of Muslim population. This is beyond appeasement, it is self-imposed servitude.

sad to say but looks like Hillary is in the thick of it.
I wonder how much behind the scenes monkeybusiness resulted from this? Hillary”Two years ago in this room, at our Eid reception, we launched a program called Generation Change to lead a grassroots agenda of positive engagement with Muslim communities.”
you can extrapolate how far they went behind the scenes to promote change by whats going on today in the mideast.

looks like Hillary took a big gamble and ended up making a big mistake in getting involved with obamas love for islam.

got this from TaylorMarsh.com…
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Ambassador. I know that that was a very personal loss for you, as it was for me. I’m the one who sent Chris to Benghazi during the revolution to show support and be able to advise our government about what we could do to bring freedom and democracy and opportunity to the people of Libya.

Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than one billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

Think about it. When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. The same goes for all faiths, including Islam.

When all of us who are people of faith – and I am one – feel the pain of insults, of misunderstanding, of denigration to what we cherish, we must expect ourselves and others not to resort to violence. That is a universal standard and expectation, and it is everyone’s obligation to meet that, so that we make no differences, we expect no less of ourselves than we expect of others. You cannot respond to offensive speech with violence without begetting more violence.

And I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one’s faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one’s faith is unshakable.

So tonight, we must come together and recommit ourselves to working toward a future marked by understanding and acceptance rather than distrust, hatred, and fear. We can pledge that whenever one person speaks out in ignorance and bigotry, ten voices will answer. They will answer resoundingly against the offense and the insult, answering ignorance with enlightenment, answering hatred with understanding, answering darkness with light; that if one person commits a violent act in the name of religion, millions will stand up and condemn it out of strength.

In times like these, it can be easy to despair that some differences are irreconcilable, some mountains too steep to climb; we will therefore never reach the level of understanding and peacefulness that we seek, and which I believe the great religions of the world call us to pursue. But that’s not what I believe, and I don’t think it’s what you believe either here tonight. Part of what makes our country so special is we keep trying. We keep working. We keep investing in our future. We keep supporting the next generation, believing that young people can keep us moving forward in a positive direction.

So tonight I think it’s important that we talk not just about that better tomorrow that we all seek, but also about some of the things – the real, practical, tangible things – that young people are doing to help shape that better future.

Two years ago in this room, at our Eid reception, we launched a program called Generation Change to lead a grassroots agenda of positive engagement with Muslim communities. And I asked the young Muslim leaders in the audience that night to be our unofficial ambassadors, to help build personal connections, seek out partners in other countries. And I can report to you tonight they did not disappoint. In a few minutes, you’re going to meet some of these young leaders, each with a powerful story to tell.

The Generation Change network that started in this room now circles the globe. We are building an international alliance of young people who want to drive change in their own communities. They act as mentors, spark respectful debates, simply offer words of encouragement when needed. But most importantly, they inspire others to keep expanding the circle of mutual understanding and respect, one person at a time.

Even as we work to spread tolerance more broadly, we also are working to deepen our appreciation for the experiences of others. Our 2012 Hours Against Hate initiative encourages young people to put themselves in another person’s shoes through service projects. So far, young people from all over the world have pledged thousands of volunteer hours to help people from a different background, to see them as a fellow human being, not a stereotype, not a caricature, but another real live person – people who don’t look like you, live like you, pray like you, but with whom we will share this planet. And therefore, we have work to do.

People of faith and conscience are called to be the leaders of tolerance. In my tradition, like all traditions, we are expected to love one another. And together, we have to translate that into better understanding and cooperation. I’m particularly pleased that the young people you will hear from tonight are really setting an example, not only for young people elsewhere in the world but, frankly, for us who are older as well.

Let me now call to the stage someone who has been a tremendous assistance to me in these efforts. Farah Pandith is the Department’s first Special Representative to Muslim Communities. And from the beginning, she has made reaching out to young people and civil society her top priority. Farah will introduce you to three young leaders who I am very proud of.

Jesus, I live here and did not know this! We have a Nuclear Reactor on campus!
**********
*Nuclear Reactor Facility Evacuated In Austin

Man with middle eastern accent claiming to be Al-Qaeda member phoned in bomb threat
Infowars.com
Friday, September 14, 2012
A research facility at the University of Texas in Austin that houses an active nuclear reactor has been evacuated after a man with a middle eastern accent claiming to be a member of Al-Qaeda warned authorities the campus had been booby-trapped with explosives.

“The university received a call from a male with a Middle Eastern accent claiming to have placed bombs all over campus. He said he was with Al Qaeda and these bombs would go off in 90 minutes. President Powers was notified and it was decided to evacuate all of the buildings out of an abundance of caution,” reports We Are Austin.com.
UT’s JJ Pickle Research facility in North Austin was also evacuated. The facility houses a a fully functional nuclear reactor operated by the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab department.
The Pickle campus is protected by a guard shack that visitors have to pass through to enter the building.
As we highlighted earlier this year, the nuclear reactor was started in the 60′s and is hidden beneath the monolith of the LBJ Library.
There was no incident 90 minutes after the call was made, suggesting the bomb threat was a hoax. However, it does coincide with attacks on U.S. embassies by radical Islamists as well as protests across the Middle East in response to a dubious film said to insult the Prophet Mohammad
A campus-wide email has been sent to all students, according to the Dallas News. “Evacuation due to threats on campus immediately evacuate all buildings get as far away from the buildings as possible. Further information to come,” the email reads.
Students at North Dakota State University in Fargo were also evacuated this morning. An unspecified threat was also made via graffiti to Valparaiso University.

NOW I am FURIOUS! The POS is sitting at AAFB, 4 hearses with bodies of slain Americans there – and will make comments. THIS is OUTRAGEOUS! Using the tragedy to try and make himself look good. Must be drugged up on something. I thought it was not decent or respectful to show American bodies – or caskets. Remember when Bush was criticized for this?

With excruciating detail, the White House on Friday laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending.

The POS has been sharing TDO’s talking points. Talking about the few Libyans holding up home made signs (no doubt made for them and thrust into their hands along with $20) and repeating about each American – Now they’re home.

And all the while, I hate to say it but WTF is HRC nodding like a friggin puppet as the POS lies.

After seeing this made-for-TV spectacular complete with Star Spangled Banner, America, Marines, flags, hearses, coffins I am beginning to think MR may have had the bad luck to have spoken before he knew about the deaths in Libya and now, in retrospect, it seems the POS got the lucky break here. Optics are excellent for him and that’s all he cares about.

RIP Mr. Stevens, Mr. Smith and the other brave soldiers wh died in Libya.

September 14, 2012
Private Security Contractor Lobbied To Beef Up Benghazi Security, But Never Got The Contract
—Ace

“Mercenaries,” Kos sniffed. “Screw ’em. I feel nothing,” he sniffed.

Maybe some “mercenaries” could have prevented four murders.

Under this agreement, extensive security precautions are put in place, including low-profile armoured vehicles, run-flat tyres, sufficient weapons, ammunition and trained personnel, as well as a tried and tested command and control system.
But sources have told the BBC that on the advice of a US diplomatic regional security officer, the mission in Benghazi was not given the full contract despite lobbying by private contractors…

Given the unstable security situation in Benghazi and eastern Libya that has developed this year, it is surprising that security precautions for such a sensitive diplomatic mission were not more robust.

Flashback to 2009: Obama says his mission is to defend Muslims from stereotype.

“That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Some might say that this sort of thing might encourage a religious maniac. They might take Obama at his word.

Turns out, this one of the promises he meant to keep.

In his speech marking the murders he failed to prevent, he further talked up the film which supposedly caused them.

Hillary spoke like a president. The president spoke like a poliltician who just had to be there for a photo op.

Hillary was obviously heartbroken and is obviously truly sad and grieving like these State Dept. employees are her family. Perhaps her hand holding and hug from BO was received by her like a grieving family member when someone reaches out to them to express sympathy.

Press Secretary Jay Carney says the White House has no information to suggest that any of the unrest in the Middle East ‘was pre-planned.’He says it’s in reaction to a video that ‘we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.’ (Sept. 14)
contrast to…

The attack, which U.S. officials believe could have been planned in advance, emerged from a protest blaming America for a U.S.-made film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad. The film has sparked protests, some of them violent, at U.S. embassies across the Muslim world.

Carney: These Protests Are Entirely About The Video. A nice, simple narrative for the sheep.

Libya closed its air space over Benghazi airport temporarily because of heavy anti-aircraft fire by Islamists aiming at U.S. reconnaissance drones flying over the city, days after the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an attack.

The closure of the airport prompted speculation that the United States was deploying special forces in preparation for an attack against the militants who were involved in the attack.

A Libyan official said the spy planes flew over the embassy compound and the city, taking photos and inspecting locations of radical militant groups who are believed to have planned and staged the attack on the U.S. consulate on Tuesday.

Militants used anti-aircraft guns to fire at the drones, forcing the authorities to shut the airport because they feared for the safety of passenger planes.
“Two American drones flew over Benghazi last night with knowledge of the Libyan authorities,” Deputy Interior Minister, Wanis al-Sharif told Reuters.

“They were visible to the eye, and came under attack by anti-aircraft weapons used by armed militias.”

Real estate mogul and Romney fundraiser Donald Trump blasted President Obama in the aftermath of a series of attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, saying the president had done a “terrible, terrible job.”

Trump, appearing on CNBC, was asked about a recent poll by The Washington Post that found more voters perceived Obama as the better candidate to aid the economy — a traditional strength for Trump.

“I’m more surprised than you are,” Trump said. “I’m even more surprised when they think the president is good at foreign affairs.”

Trump then launched into a blistering critique of recent events in the Middle East, where protests over a controversial anti-Islam film have turned violent. On Wednesday, American officials announced that four diplomatic workers had been killed at the consulate in Libya.

“You look at how he gave up Egypt. And Libya, after we bombed the hell out of everybody, Libya turns around, kills our ambassador and other great people that are with us and not even with us,” Trump said. “He killed our ambassador and other people. This is a group that we didn’t know who they were. They called themselves the rebels, like it’s a romantic vision of ‘Gone With the Wind.’ ”

Trump went on to say “the world is laughing at us” because of the president’s policies.

“I think he’s the worst foreign president in terms of what’s happening, foreign-policy president in our history,” Trump said.

Trump also appeared to signal his support for the call from some Republican legislators to suspend aid to countries where violent protests were allowed to amass outside the embassies.

“We’re giving Egypt billions of dollars. The only reason to even take our phone call is because they want the money to come through,” Trump said. “I think he’s done a terrible, terrible job, and yet, you listen to people and the polls show he’s up in foreign events and foreign affairs. I think it’s ridiculous.”

CNBC host Maria Bartiromo then asked Trump why, when “you know, you talk to foreigners, then they love [Obama],” prompting another criticism.

“Foreigners should love him. Why wouldn’t foreigners love him?” Trump said. “Every country that does business with us makes a fortune. I think foreigners should definitely love the United States. They should definitely love President Obama because every country is getting rich on us.”

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

That’s the pathetic foreign policy of the Obama administration, says Caddell today in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “Jarrett seems to have a 24 hour, around the clock detail, with five or six agents full time,” Caddell explains. “The media has been completely uninterested. We don’t provide security for our ambassador in Libya, but she needs a full Secret Service security detail. And nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with this. And nobody in the press will ask. What kind of slavish stoogery are they perpetrating here?

Colonel Hunt: Hillary Clinton Made Decision Not To Have Marines at Benghazi

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt laid the blame for the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans at the Benghazi, Libya American mission on Hillary Clinton and the State Department:

“The State Department just allowed our guys to get killed. If you approve no bullets in guns for the mission security guards and an outhouse for a mission, you’re inviting it”

Earlier, on Howie Carr’s radio show Thursday, Colonel Hunt said that the American mission at Benghazi “was like a cardboard building, there wasn’t even bullet proof glass.” In addition, Hunt said the security guards inside the mission didn’t have bullets:

Howie Carr: They weren’t allowed to have bullets, is that correct?

Colonel Hunt: That’s true. They were private security. The rules of engagement were ridiculous.

Hunt told Breitbart News that the new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, approved and signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton since the 2011 fall of Khadafi’s regime, severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.

He also stated that the decision not to staff Benghazi with Marines was made by Secretary of State Clinton when she attached her signature to the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya document. Breitbart News has subsequently learned that under those rules of engagement, Secretary Clinton prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya.

Hunt told Breitbart News that “the rules of engagement have been changing drastically over the last 10 years. . . The reason the surge in Iraq worked was we had another 40,000 soldiers and the rules of engagement were changed to allow our guys to shoot. What’s happened in Libya is the final straw of political correctness. We allowed a contractor to hire local nationals as security guards, but said they can’t have bullets. This was all part of the point of not having a high profile in Libya.”

…………………………..

I hate to say it and i am saddened by it but they are looking for a scapegoat in this and Obama will be happy to chuck her under the bus if it saves his neck. What can she do to get out of this, i do not know but she survived the wikileaks crap and all the diplomatic cables however something tells me this is going to haunt her for a very long time.

I hate to say it and i am saddened by it but they are looking for a scapegoat in this and Obama will be happy to chuck her under the bus if it saves his neck. What can she do to get out of this, i do not know but she survived the wikileaks crap and all the diplomatic cables however something tells me this is going to haunt her for a very long time.

——-
Putting the blame on Hillary, directly from the O’horse’s mouth would cause the Big Dawg to go into attack mode and there would be no reason Hillary would stick around the last 5 months.

The Clinton’s are the only stability and credibility his party still has and to pull the blame card on Hillary would be a very BIG mistake for Barry to make.

Yup Shadowfax but we all knows how this bastard works, it will be briefing against her, so as it looks like she has to resign and not fire her, if he does it, it will be made to look like incompetence. He’s just capable of doing it, i said earlier, if he feels he is going to go down, he is going to take her with him. He is that sort of guy.

I really felt for Hillary today, you could tell she was really really grieving. I thought she would break down. I detect a different cadence in her voice now, she speaks with a longer tone … I don’t know, she just sounds different. Anyone else notice this besides me. Is she taking some kind of voice classes, someone tell her she needs it or something? It just wasn’t here, its the last few times I have heard her, she is speaking very slowly now, saying each word. Am I crazy???

Sorry moon, Hillary is the SOS, it is part of her mission to make sure her people are not in harms way.I understand the very nature of the job is dangerous, but measures can and should be taken to minimize it. She should have made sure they had the appropriate security in the very least, and that means our armed Marines , and not two of them.

If the intel is correct, and the State Dept had 48 hour advance, she has responsibility.They should have not been there.

If they didn’t have intel, one would have to ask, what the hell is going ion over there? This was a planned event, not a one shot deal.

Then-Senator Barack Obama makes the case for an Obama Presidency on November 21, 2007 by saying he is uniquely qualified to bring stability to America’s relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim.

Oh I understand Gonzotx, as i said i don’t like it, I feel anger at present, this is a screw up of epic proportions and someone is going to get the political knife and pay the price for it. If Hillary did indeed know and made mistakes then she may pay the ultimate price for it.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Egan-Jones Ratings Co. said Friday it downgraded its U.S. sovereign rating to AA- from AA on concerns that the Fed’s new round of quantitative easing, or QE3, will hurt the U.S. economy. The ratings agency said the Fed’s plan of buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities a month and keeping interest rates near zero does little to raise GDP, reduces the value of the dollar, and raises the price of commodities. “From 2006 to present, the US’s debt to GDP rose from 66% to 104% and will probably rise to 110% a year from today under current circumstances; the annual budget deficit is 8%,” Egan-Jones said in a note. “In comparison, Spain has a debt to GDP of 68.5% and an annual budget deficit of 8.5%.”

With excruciating detail, the White House’s budget office on Friday laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending.

The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aide to Afghanistan, with tens of billions coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts.

“The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,” the White House’s budget office said in the report.

Everything from fencing and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border to the government’s own internal watchdogs to local environmental programs are also on the chopping block.

The cuts fall particularly heavy on the federal civilian workforce, where staffing levels and salaries would be docked more than 8 percent almost across the board.

OK. I HATE going here but I am beginning to suspect this ME blow-up was orchestrated by the POS to create a rally-round-the-flag moment. I would not put it past him. It would explain why the media jumped all over MR on Wednesday. They all have a copy of the script and it calls for the POS to make some BS speech and then, in light of the Nuclear site evacuation, the university closings, to call for martial law. MR got in the way. The media acted like two-bit actors yelling – but it doesn’t say that!

The fact they are blaming this film which has been out since July – outed the film maker including his address – pulled Terry Jones – the most hated man in America into the mix – and all this sh!t happened on 911 – too many coincidences as far as I’m concerned. Add to that the fact there were no armed Americans at the Libyan embassy and I think you might have a POS-authorized assassination.

And now the film can also be used as reason for crackdown on American free speech – including free elections.

This is a set-up and Valjar and the POS’s fingerprints are all over it.
______________________________________

I didn’t want to even think about this possibility but, like you, I did…

turndownobama
September 14th, 2012 at 12:06 am
The Daily Callerl thinks Mohammed is a REPUTED prophet? Maybe someone should re-write the Christian Bible in similar language.

Are you saying, then that Mohammed is an ACTUAL prophet? Do you take their beliefs as actual truth? If you ask me, we are not sure if he is an actual prophet or not so reputed is the right word to use. What we know for sure is that Mohammed is a pedophile. So using reputed before the word pedophile to describe Mohammed would not be proper.

I’m surprise about the nervous comments of a possible Obama victory on this blog.
Romney still has a 10 to 15 point lead on Obama with independent voters nationwide. This lead is consistent even in the leftist CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN polls. With this lead and a whole lot fewer Democrats voting this November. It all about the size of Romney’s victory. Obama won the 2008 election by 6 % because he won the independent voters by 8 % . This is why the MSM is increasing the attacks on Romney. Obama is losing badly now especially with independent voters. As far as RCP polls I just ignore them. There are just full of DNC biased polls.